Martin Luther King Jr was arrested at least a dozen times for civil disobedience yet didn't spend years in prison for it. The people in power learned their lesson from the civil rights movement. Nowadays, civil disobedience can get one serious time behind bars so people think twice before protesting. That's what the gun nuts don't understand; the government doesn't have to kick in everyone's door, they just have to make most people too afraid to fight back.

If this was on a public sidewalk then Bank of America was not responsible for cleaning it up, since it's not their property. They only cleaned it because it embarrassed their business; then went straight to their cronies in the justice department to get them to make an example of someone who dare try to embarrass them.This guy should first sue the city for selective persecution, then sue Bank of America.

Wolf892:This stinks of a payoff to the right people by the BoA to make an example of this serf. Everyone knows it's a stupid charge, it's stupid that they say they paid $6000.00 but no one will stop this from going to trial and having a sentence handed down to this poor guy just so that the rest of us have the fear of Hades put into us so that we don't speak out against our corporate lords.

"Lord help our farking scam... this has to be the stupidest place I have worked at," writes one Standard & Poor's executive... "Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of card[s] falters," ruminates one more....Thanks to these documents, we now know how that happened. And showing as they do the back-and-forth between the country's top ratings agencies and one of America's biggest investment banks (Morgan Stanley) in advance of two major subprime deals, they also lay out in detail the evolution of the industrywide fraud that led to implosion of the world economy - how banks, hedge funds, mortgage lenders and ratings agencies, working at an extraordinary level of cooperation, teamed up to disguise and then sell near-worthless loans as AAA securities.

This stinks of a payoff to the right people by the BoA to make an example of this serf. Everyone knows it's a stupid charge, it's stupid that they say they paid $6000.00 but no one will stop this from going to trial and having a sentence handed down to this poor guy just so that the rest of us have the fear of Hades put into us so that we don't speak out against our corporate lords.

Long story short. When I was 12 a friend and I were caught tagging the side of the school with the chalk. A police officer saw us and "arrested" us. Our parents were called and we had to clean it up. No real arrest and no BS over chalk on the school. however....

Joke was on them. Our parents thought it was clever and perhaps a little cruel to have us use a very small brillo pad and tooth brush to clean off our naughty language. My friend and I looked at each other as there wasn't much to start with and we realized very early that super cleaning only 1 part of a building results in only one thing. Orders are orders and if parents and a police officer are that damn stupid... well they just became part of the prank. I whispered this fact to my friend and we continued to vigorously scrub. Afterwords our art was now engraved into the brick of the school and our parents failed to realize this. Our artwork was visible for a few years until somebody felt it was worth preserving and gave it an upgrade with real spray paint.

The right thing would have been to just have us hose it down, but our parents thought it would be a better idea to get creative with the solution. It backfired and it was awesome.

mattharvest:He describes his own actions as an attempt to hurt the bank. Again, I'm not agreeing with the discretionary choice to prosecute him, but he fits the standards of the statute.

TFA:"I was encouraging folks to close their accounts at big Wall Street banks to transfer their money local nonprofit, community credit unions,"

I'm really having a problem with this idea that encouraging people to use an alternate service provider is "hurting" a multinational corporation. Maybe if people started listening to Olson it might reduce corporate revenue but lets not pretend that anyone is being physically harmed here.

Take it to trial, and insist on a jury.Explain very carefully in opening and closing arguments about the civic virtue of non-violent protest, speak lovingly of the 1st Amendment, point out the utter ridiculousness of the claimed "damage" that cost $6000 to fix.

Let the jury decide if writing on the sidewalk with chalk purchsed from the toy department os a store is worth more prison time than rape or kidnapping.

Cataholic:WhyteRaven74: cman: 1. Guy was retarded by vandalizing public property

except given that chalk is not permanent nor damages the property it's not really vandalism.

California Penal Code Sec 594

(a) Every person who maliciously commits any of the following acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of vandalism:

(1) Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material.

(2) Damages.

(3) Destroys.

Chalk doesn't damage or destroy concrete. You also notice that nowhere in the penal code is 'deface' defined in the CA penal code.

Gimme a hose and a scrub brush, I'll do it for half in about 15 minutes.

Wankers.

In my version it was going to be a bucket and a scrub brush, but This.How could a bank possibly have spent $6k to do what the next rain storm would have done for free?Fly the CEO in to take care of it personally?Sidewalk Chalk Guy was right.

I really hope this gets thrown back into their faces (the banks and the city). It's not really defacing if it's not permanent or a light rainstorm can take care of it for you. Hell a temp with a rented power washer can take care of it in under an hour.

TonyDanza:Monkeyhouse Zendo: lets not pretend that anyone is being physically harmed here.

If you think physical damage is the only way something or someone can be "hurt" then we are done discussing this, or for that matter, any issue.

Sloppy writing is an indication of sloppy thinking. Maybe you mean "damage" rather than "hurt"?

Hurt has as its primary definition the infliction of physical pain associated with injury and is generally used in reference to living things since they're the ones that can feel pain. Damage, on the other hand, is generally used in reference to inanimate objects and doesn't include the connotation of causing physical pain.

My point is that you're anthropomorphizing a business entity in an attempt to invoke an emotional response associated with the word "hurt". So yeah, I see what you're doing there.

TonyDanza:Monkeyhouse Zendo: Today I learned that attempting to reduce a corporation's profits by advocating that consumers use an alternate service provider is "hurting" that corporation. I guess Mitt was right: corporations are people too.

Today you learned that a corporation is made up of people? What did you think they were previously?

Holy shiat you are retarded; intentionally or not doesn't matter. I doubt you will ever offer anything resembling meaningful commentary.

Monkeyhouse Zendo:mattharvest: He describes his own actions as an attempt to hurt the bank. Again, I'm not agreeing with the discretionary choice to prosecute him, but he fits the standards of the statute.

TFA:"I was encouraging folks to close their accounts at big Wall Street banks to transfer their money local nonprofit, community credit unions,"

I'm really having a problem with this idea that encouraging people to use an alternate service provider is "hurting" a multinational corporation. Maybe if people started listening to Olson it might reduce corporate revenue but lets not pretend that anyone is being physically harmed here.

Don't do a false equivalency: maliciousness doesn't require physical harm, but rather just harm. If you intend to harm someone's business, that's maliciousness (that's why we have a tort for interfering with someone's business). Moreover, the nature and content of his behavior indicate it was intended to harm them. Not physically injure anyone, but definitely to harm.

The 'winning' issue here is that this is simply silly, not that he doesn't fit the statute.

TonyDanza:Monkeyhouse Zendo: Today I learned that attempting to reduce a corporation's profits by advocating that consumers use an alternate service provider is "hurting" that corporation. I guess Mitt was right: corporations are people too.

Today you learned that a corporation is made up of people? What did you think they were previously?

Today I learned that healthy business competition is fueled by malice and a desire to hurt the employees of competing companies.

His action was done with the sole intent of hurting Bank of America. By the very definition of the term it was an act of malice.

Today I learned that attempting to reduce a corporation's profits by advocating that consumers use an alternate service provider is "hurting" that corporation. I guess Mitt was right: corporations are people too.

His action was done with the sole intent of hurting Bank of America. By the very definition of the term it was an act of malice.

Today I learned that attempting to reduce a corporation's profits by advocating that consumers use an alternate service provider is "hurting" that corporation. I guess Mitt was right: corporations are people too.

Walker:According to Olson, one of the banks -- Bank of America -- said it cost them $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing.

[media.tumblr.com image 193x135]

They got the CEO to clean it. It took him 15 minutes to clean the street (ever seen a CEO scrub? That's why it took so long). This goes into his job review as a job well done so it might even be more expensive come bonus time.

except given that chalk is not permanent nor damages the property it's not really vandalism.

California Penal Code Sec 594

(a) Every person who maliciously commits any of the following acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of vandalism:

(1) Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material.

(2) Damages.

(3) Destroys.

Chalk doesn't damage or destroy concrete. You also notice that nowhere in the penal code is 'deface' defined in the CA penal code.

Then you go with the plain dictionary meaning. If it mars the appearance of something, it defaces it.

Yeah but marring the appearance of something implies some type of permanence. Am I defacing a whiteboard if I draw a dick on it (and I have many a times)? Not in my view since it is easily removed.

I'm not saying the law is good here, but you're also wrong. To mar something doesn't imply permanence; it's simply (per Meriam-Webster) to impair the appearance of the thing. In fairness, it also includes permanent impairments, but I don't see anything in any dictionary definition (nor my own experience of the word) to require permanence.

The statute appears to have been specifically written to include non-permanent marring, perhaps in response to situations such as this where the 'vandal' seeks to defend themselves by saying "It's not permanent". Among other things, what is the definition of 'permanent' there? If you can repair damage, is it really "permanent" in any sense? How much effort must the 'repair' require before something transitions from non-permanent to permanent?

If you cut your hair, it's permanent in the sense that you'll never glue your hair back together; it's non-permanent in the sense that, obviously, your hair will grow out on it's own. If you require permanence in the definition of vandalism, you're constantly going to have to define and redefine permanence.

By having their definition simply leave that out, it appears California is avoiding that little Gordian knot.

I think OWS was a bunch of retards, but charging this guy with even a fraction of the possible sentence is even more retarded. And the only thing that might be more retarded than that is paying $6000 to clean up sidewalk chalk drawings....

except given that chalk is not permanent nor damages the property it's not really vandalism.

California Penal Code Sec 594

(a) Every person who maliciously commits any of the following acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of vandalism:

(1) Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material.

(2) Damages.

(3) Destroys.

Chalk doesn't damage or destroy concrete. You also notice that nowhere in the penal code is 'deface' defined in the CA penal code.

Then you go with the plain dictionary meaning. If it mars the appearance of something, it defaces it.

Yeah but marring the appearance of something implies some type of permanence. Am I defacing a whiteboard if I draw a dick on it (and I have many a times)? Not in my view since it is easily removed.

It cost Bank of America only $6K? They had to fly in a BoA vice president and assistant to supervise the operation. And truck to the site the special cleaning fluids and personnel to do the job. Or they could have one of their maintenance people do it.